Ron Fournier: Why I'm Sick of Defending Obamacare

Incompetent implementation, heavy-handed partisanship, and questionable rule changes are making it difficult to advocate on behalf of President Barack Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act, writes National Journal correspondentRon Fournier.

He wants Obamacare to work "because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits," Fournier wrote.

But it is becoming near impossible to defend the president's signature healthcare policy because it has been politicized by the White House, he wrote. "The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation."

This mentality set the stage for "a dishonest talking point — 'If you like your health plan, you'll be able to keep your health plan.'"

As an "epidemic of incompetence" revealed itself in connection with Obamacare's implementation, defending the policy "became painfully harder." The healthcare plan's credibility was further tarnished when "officials started fudging numbers and massaging facts," writes Fournier.

There have been "at least a dozen major adjustments" to the law without congressional approval further undermined the position of supporters, he wrote. The administration claims broad "authority to grant transition relief" under the Internal Revenue Code's sections pertaining to enforcement of tax obligations, a position Fournier writes that exposes Obamacare as a tax.

"Even the law's most fervent supporters are frustrated," he wrote.

Meanwhile, a Wednesday editorial in The Washington Post said Obama was wrong to unilaterally modify explicit clauses of the Affordable Care Act in order to delay enforcement of the employer mandate.

The newspaper said political expediency is not a good reason for the White House to reinterpret congressional intent.